Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal.

Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say.

Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel.

Burning wood releases Co2, which has carbon.

Ah so then you admit 99.9% fossil fuels are from a unique catastrophe in the past.

and growing trees absorbs carbon, which absorbs CO2 which any middle schooler would understand as part of the carbon cycle. Forastero is not alone in his IDiocy of only considering just CO2 out, there are politicians who think they should stop breathing to emit CO2. I agree on the stop breathing part, but only because the world needs fewer people pandering to IDiots.

As far as catastrophic processes go, all I have seen is forastero's attempts to do whatever the hell it thinks it is doing.

Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc...

Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal.

Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say.

Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel.

Burning wood releases Co2, which has carbon.

Ah so then you admit 99.9% fossil fuels are from a unique catastrophe in the past.

and growing trees absorbs carbon, which absorbs CO2 which any middle schooler would understand as part of the carbon cycle. Forastero is not alone in his IDiocy of only considering just CO2 out, there are politicians who think they should stop breathing to emit CO2. I agree on the stop breathing part, but only because the world needs fewer people pandering to IDiots.

As far as catastrophic processes go, all I have seen is forastero's attempts to do whatever the hell it thinks it is doing.

Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc...

Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal.

This is why the muppet is entertaining - he tries to paraphrase things he doesn't understand, and ends up telling us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is sequestered in fish.

Maybe they're in an aquatic refuge.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal.

Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say.

Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel.

Burning wood releases Co2, which has carbon.

Ah so then you admit 99.9% fossil fuels are from a unique catastrophe in the past.

and growing trees absorbs carbon, which absorbs CO2 which any middle schooler would understand as part of the carbon cycle. Forastero is not alone in his IDiocy of only considering just CO2 out, there are politicians who think they should stop breathing to emit CO2. I agree on the stop breathing part, but only because the world needs fewer people pandering to IDiots.

As far as catastrophic processes go, all I have seen is forastero's attempts to do whatever the hell it thinks it is doing.

Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc...

Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal.

This is why the muppet is entertaining - he tries to paraphrase things he doesn't understand, and ends up telling us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is sequestered in fish.

Maybe they're in an aquatic refuge.

Forastero is merely alluding to the fact that around half of the CO2 excess is absorbed by the ocean short term. Nothing about fish, but being clear is not on its agenda.

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

Stupid enough to think all sedimentary rock is less than 5,000 years old.

Stupid enough to think small error bars on decay rate determinations are consistent with being off by a factor of ~200,000.

Stupid enough not to know the difference between crankery and science.

Stupid enough to think he's dangerous.

Stupid enough to think he's winning.

p. 388 in Early life on earth, Bengston seems to quote Darwin's "Complete State" but gives no citation but actually, I gave much better quotes from Darwin concerning the Cambrian/preCambrian

1 + 0.005 ^ does = 1.005^

All kinds of things can catalyze tunneling, fission, fusion, etc.. which can be speed up or slowed down. Bottom line though is that evolutionism wont do isochron dating on bones, nor the rocks that the bones are in. They only do igneous rocks that are not associated with fossils and imo, because only those highly heated pressurized rocks give the extremely long ages that evolutionist claim to need if biodiversity sprang from random mutations.

Stupid enough to think all sedimentary rock is less than 5,000 years old.

Stupid enough to think small error bars on decay rate determinations are consistent with being off by a factor of ~200,000.

Stupid enough not to know the difference between crankery and science.

Stupid enough to think he's dangerous.

Stupid enough to think he's winning.

p. 388 in Early life on earth, Bengston seems to quote Darwin's "Complete State" but gives no citation but actually, I gave much better quotes from Darwin concerning the Cambrian/preCambrian

1 + 0.005 ^ does = 1.005^

All kinds of things can catalyze tunneling, fission, fusion, etc.. which can be speed up or slowed down. Bottom line though is that evolutionism wont do isochron dating on bones, nor the rocks that the bones are in. They only do igneous rocks that are not associated with fossils and imo, because only those highly heated pressurized rocks give the extremely long ages that evolutionist claim to need if biodiversity sprang from random mutations.

Crankery from even Ivy league schools, I'll agree with that

yeah I am stupid but the Holy Spirit that converted me is not

You were the one who freaked out when Jon (I think) said that 1 +0.005 was equal to 1.005.

You really think you can get a isochron on a fossil? Really?

Hoo boy... home skillet has well and truly lost it.

You do understand how radioactive dating works right? Nevermind, you don't. In spite of multiple people trying to teach you, you still don't get it. A truly stunning display of Morton's Demon... and Dunning-Kruger for that matter.

You should be in a text book.

BTW: Which fossil fuels are currently sequestering CO2?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Its silly imo to insist upon plugging in numbers to drawn out formulas when no one really knows what those prehistoric rates were, especially in this setting. However, if Copy&paste formulas impresses you so, then why arnt you using them in your two Bible date critiques? Moreover, the only formula you have, the Henry Morris exponential formula that you misconstrued here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....20.html

Its supposed to look like this P(n) = 8(1 + .005)^N but you wrote it like P(N) = 8 × (1.005)^N and I'd say willfully so; and then you even said that you were doing us a favor by using the much larger growth rate

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal.

Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say.

Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel.

Burning wood releases Co2, which has carbon.

Ah so then you admit 99.9% fossil fuels are from a unique catastrophe in the past.

and growing trees absorbs carbon, which absorbs CO2 which any middle schooler would understand as part of the carbon cycle. Forastero is not alone in his IDiocy of only considering just CO2 out, there are politicians who think they should stop breathing to emit CO2. I agree on the stop breathing part, but only because the world needs fewer people pandering to IDiots.

As far as catastrophic processes go, all I have seen is forastero's attempts to do whatever the hell it thinks it is doing.

Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc...

Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal.

This is why the muppet is entertaining - he tries to paraphrase things he doesn't understand, and ends up telling us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is sequestered in fish.

Does this mean my cola also sequesters CO2? What happens when I pop the top?

just wow

The "are sequestering" is indeed a stupid, but the char refers to biochars, a quite feasible approach to sequestering carbon.

Most coal is about 75-90 percent carbon. Biochar is 80% carbon that both act as present sinks. And as I told Ogre a while back, they are probably both mostly made by pyrolysis. The same stuff that makes bio-char is also often used to make bio-oil, which is also used to sequester carbon

Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf

You didn't SAY biochar... you said 'char'. There's a big freaking difference.

Now, what fossil fuels are sequestering CO2?

Is this going to be another that I have to hound you on for pages and pages?

All fossil fuels are currently involved in sequestering carbon? Really? Everything? The gasoline in my car is currently sequestering carbon dioxide?

Not much-just more politically correct. Char is a broad term but char, charcoal and biochar are all carbon byproducts of pyrolysis. The only difference is that Biochar is charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass. A vogue agroforestry technique is called slash-n-char

Stupid enough to think all sedimentary rock is less than 5,000 years old.

Stupid enough to think small error bars on decay rate determinations are consistent with being off by a factor of ~200,000.

Stupid enough not to know the difference between crankery and science.

Stupid enough to think he's dangerous.

Stupid enough to think he's winning.

p. 388 in Early life on earth, Bengston seems to quote Darwin's "Complete State" but gives no citation but actually, I gave much better quotes from Darwin concerning the Cambrian/preCambrian

1 + 0.005 ^ does = 1.005^

All kinds of things can catalyze tunneling, fission, fusion, etc.. which can be speed up or slowed down. Bottom line though is that evolutionism wont do isochron dating on bones, nor the rocks that the bones are in. They only do igneous rocks that are not associated with fossils and imo, because only those highly heated pressurized rocks give the extremely long ages that evolutionist claim to need if biodiversity sprang from random mutations.

Crankery from even Ivy league schools, I'll agree with that

yeah I am stupid but the Holy Spirit that converted me is not

You were the one who freaked out when Jon (I think) said that 1 +0.005 was equal to 1.005.

You really think you can get a isochron on a fossil? Really?

Hoo boy... home skillet has well and truly lost it.

You do understand how radioactive dating works right? Nevermind, you don't. In spite of multiple people trying to teach you, you still don't get it. A truly stunning display of Morton's Demon... and Dunning-Kruger for that matter.

You should be in a text book.

BTW: Which fossil fuels are currently sequestering CO2?

Maybe you believe all that because you are pretending to be a scientist.

I have already shown that oil fields and coal sequester carbon.

I meant that they dont do isochrons on bones but then come to think about it, why not ?

Btw, you believe the favored isochron 238U always decay chains into lead but in fact it can directly transmutate into all kinds isotpes via al kinds of decay mechanisms. Some 238U has different barrier wall thickness and decays extremely fast.

Stupid enough to think all sedimentary rock is less than 5,000 years old.

Stupid enough to think small error bars on decay rate determinations are consistent with being off by a factor of ~200,000.

Stupid enough not to know the difference between crankery and science.

Stupid enough to think he's dangerous.

Stupid enough to think he's winning.

p. 388 in Early life on earth, Bengston seems to quote Darwin's "Complete State" but gives no citation but actually, I gave much better quotes from Darwin concerning the Cambrian/preCambrian

1 + 0.005 ^ does = 1.005^

All kinds of things can catalyze tunneling, fission, fusion, etc.. which can be speed up or slowed down.

Hee hee hee hee! Still no evidence!

Quote

Bottom line though is that evolutionism wont do isochron dating on bones, nor the rocks that the bones are in. They only do igneous rocks that are not associated with fossils and imo, because only those highly heated pressurized rocks give the extremely long ages that evolutionist claim to need if biodiversity sprang from random mutations.

See below.

Quote

Crankery from even Ivy league schools, I'll agree with that

yeah I am stupid but the Holy Spirit that converted me is not

Well you certainly are stupid, and incapable of figuring out the simplest parts of reality, Holy Spirit or not.

Its silly imo to insist upon plugging in numbers to drawn out formulas when no one really knows what those prehistoric rates were, especially in this setting. However, if Copy&paste formulas impresses you so, then why arnt you using them in your two Bible date critiques? Moreover, the only formula you have, the Henry Morris exponential formula that you misconstrued here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....20.html

Its supposed to look like this P(n) = 8(1 + .005)^N but you wrote it like P(N) = 8 × (1.005)^N and I'd say willfully so; and then you even said that you were doing us a favor by using the much larger growth rate

I can't claim credit for the original, which is due to Mark Isaak. 'Forastero' incorrectly attributed it to me while taking exception to a perfectly well-formed mathematical equation.